So:
I haven't seen a single decent response to jbreher so far, so there's some merit to this claim.
Also, the market cap argument some people brought up doesn't follow. Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards.
Now you have. Bookmark it. Not sure if you're just being confrontational for the sake of it. But my point remains unchanged. |
|
|
|
Internet speeds are irrelevant, as they increase rapidly as data usage increases. The capacity is not even remotely near its maximum (last I checked 100~1000 GBit for consumers were possible but simply not sensible right now), even if you exclude all the satellites that are being launched over the coming years.
Data plans irrelevant as most countries don't have "data plans" for home use and offer unlimited bandwidth instead.
Storage is irrelevant as well. Even 4 TB SSDs only cost a few hundred bucks these days. By the time storage became an issue we'll have 50-100 TB hard drives for a couple hundred dollars.
RAM seems the only sensible bottleneck if your numbers are accurate. $6 per GB currently and I haven't seen RAM size increase as much as other hardware. But that seems to be mostly because of a lack of utility rather than technical implausibility.
I also fail to see how your highway analogy is supposed to hold. Highways are inherently limited by physical space. Hardware inherently works in a different way. If we had arbitrary amounts of space that we could build on economically we'd have no problem with building even a personal lane for every single human in the world. And with hardware we actually do. It takes sometime to develop and scale, but so far there's no end in sight to how much data we can get from any one point on earth to any other.
I have no idea about the implications on mining and centralization though.
As far as a "real game changer" is concerned. That's already Bitcoin. It solves one of humanity's biggest issues. Banks fucking around and screwing the entire population. For a new "real game changer" to appear we would first require a new "real problem".
And Bitcoin hasn't even been around long enough to really get rid of the issues that come with banking, privatized profits, socialized losses, as well as the fiat toilet paper printing press.
It'll probably take a few decades until we can really identify new serious problems and have people give enough of a shit about them for some to try and someone to actually succeed in solving them as well as people actually jumping ship.
yes totally agree with you on your last point.... The highway analogy was not about space to build the highway, but rather it doesn't matter how many lanes are built, it will still eventually get to the same outcome as a 1 lane highway. You will still end up with traffic congestion, nothing has been solved. I was merely trying to associate with the fact bitcoin developers was not concerned with building more lanes, ie increase block size, but focusing on alternate transport methods or alternate transport habits. ie layer 2 scaling. There also comes to a point where you may never be able to run full node from scratch. Based on a 30sec a 1MB validation time and i have read somewhere that it may be quadratically longer the bigger the block. will try and find the whitepaper on that one, but for arguments sake i used a linear model. You will be validating previous blocks and never catching up. Just to confirm the 30sec theory, i'd shutdown my Bitcoin Node, was 8 blocks behind, fired it back up and it took about 5mins to catch up 10 blocks, two blocks was found while validating/catching up. Maybe in developed countries the internet is more reliable, but what about us third world internet countries, like here in Australia! Struggling to even get 100Mbit business internet grade, let alone consumer grade. Typical speeds are more like 10mbit. BTW 100-1000Gbit Internet available right now? who the fuck is offering that? i want one right now! Again, your highway analogy only works with restrictive limitations. More highways irl only converge towards congestion because we can't build them indefinitely in an economic manner. If we kept building highways indefinitely, then at some point there would be more lanes than humans and thus no congestion whatsoever, even long before each person gets their own lane. And again, our bandwidth is not even remotely utilized to its full capacity even when ignoring future changes. Congestion is a non-issue, at least with the issues that you've raised so far. As soon as it became one our bandwidth and data plans would adapt and that's that. I'm saying 100-1000Gbit are easily possible, probably more by now since I've read about this quite a while ago. There's just no reason to offer those bandwidths when the most a consumer does is stream multiple 4k videos at the same time. See for example this article from 2007: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/12/swedish_woman_has_fastest_internet_connection/The argument with undeveloped countries (in terms of internet speed) doesn't hold if you argue for decentralization, unless you want the majority of "normal" people to run a node. There are enough people who can easily afford to run nodes and they don't. This won't change even if it's free simply because there's no immediate incentive for anyone to do so. If people acted in the ways necessary for that to work none of us would be using fiat money. Edit: Not trying to say that there is no problem with big blocks. I don't know enough about the protocol to pass judgement on that front. But the bandwidth and storage issues seem heavily overblown to me and suffering from the same type of linear mindset that keeps people out of Bitcoin and investing in general. |
|
|
|
Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China
In other news, Bitcoin is dead againLike China would even really ban mining there, ha. Bitmain has too much money to bribe officials. Do they still have that kind of money? Enough, small companies can bribe, I'm sure they can still. Pretty sad if mere 6-7 figure payments can impact legislation. I'm pretty sure that can impact it even in the US. ...but fake news is so much cheaper. Why waste the money on bureaucrats? Speed/efficiency. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah larger block blah blah
You have bcash and bsv with larger blocks, go there you have options. What part of we don't want larger blocks is so hard to comprehend Yeah, I get it. But some here seem utterly oblivious to the consequences thereof. And you feel that you grasp full consequences of bcash and bsv and their unlimited blocks ...? For the most part, yes. I certainly feel I have a greater than average grasp of such consequences -- upon both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core -- than does the average Bitcoiner -- in any of the Bitcoin camps. For evidence of such, I need only look at the near-universally asinine replies issued as 'rebuttals' to the points I make. I haven't seen a single decent response to jbreher so far, so there's some merit to this claim. Also, the market cap argument some people brought up doesn't follow. Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards. The market picks the winners. The market doesn't always care about "superior technology". That's fair if the argument is made that way. But using the market's decision as an argument for which is "better" in a technical argument doesn't make sense. I don't think there's anything wrong with just outright stating that you're into Bitcoin because the most prominent representatives of BCash are a bunch of ass wipes that can not be trusted. And that's clearly the reasoning that most people arguing with jbreher are following. After all they're clearly incapable of having a technical debate about the matter. I fall into that camp as well, but I'm not going to pretend that I can hold a candle to jbreher on this topic. Never bothered getting into the technicalities of BTC so can't argue on his level. If they were the only information that I had regarding BTC vs BCash I would be siding with BCash myself. So maybe some people in this thread should take a step back and consider the implications of their petty tribalism with regard to new coiners.The game isn't over yet, and if all that new people have to go by is a bunch of nonsense vs technical arguments we could very well see BCash overtaking. So for whatever reasons, people who care about BTC may want to consider whether or not they want to taint its image with retarded personal attacks and complete absence of rationality. First of all, I don't believe you need to explain it on technical level why bigger blocks are not a permanent solution to unconfirmed transaction. if 1MB is not bigger enough what makes you think 1GB will be? read back and see my highway analogy and how impracticable it is. Want a technical explanation of the impact of having every single transaction recorded on the blockchain and also the blockchain having a bigger blocks... 1. Database Size Lets assume Bitcoin is now the standard peer-to-peer payment method. for Simplicity, let assume there will be 1,000,000,000 Transaction a day. Each transaction is approx 250b. (assuming there is only one input and one output). 41,666,666 / Hour or 6,944,444 /10Mins This will mean we need a min of 1.736GB blocksize to accommodate the transactions. So... Every Block: 1.736GB Every Hour: 10.416GB Every Day: 250GB Every Year: 91,250GB is added to the blockchain 2. Hardware Requirements Using a base line, and I am being conservative, of 30sec and 200MB (Should be about 1GB-2GB) of RAM to Validate and Confirm 1MB. 1,736MB would require approx 868mins or 14.4Hours to confirm a block 1,736MB would require approx 347GB of RAM 1,736MB would cost $0.034 (0.02c per GB) or $1,825.00 per year (assuming your computer had enough SATA interfaces) 3. Internet Connection/Bandwidth required Assuming everyone is on a 1GB fiber connection 1000mBIT / 8bit = 125MB/sec will take 13secs not including overheads, retry missed packet etc etc.... 13secs to get to the first node (2 Available to Rely) 26secs to get to another 2 nodes (4 Available to Rely) 39secs to get to another 4 nodes (8 Available to Rely) 52secs to get to another 8 nodes (16 Available to Rely) 65secs to get to another 16 nodes (32 Available to Rely) 78secs to get to another 32 nodes (64 Available to Rely) 91secs to get to another 64 nodes (128 Available to Rely) 104secs to get to another 128 nodes (256 Available to Rely) 117secs to get to another 256 nodes (512 Available to Rely) 130secs to get to another 512 nodes (1024 Available to Rely) 143secs to get to another 1024 nodes (2048 Available to Rely) 156secs to get to another 2048 nodes (4096 Available to Rely) You will also require a data plan of 7.5TB a month for below. Every Block: 1.736GB Every Hour: 10.416GB Every Day: 250GB Every Year: 91,250GB So just to recap the above, You would need to buy a machine capable of handling 1TB of RAM and possible a RAID Storage that can handle 91TB of Hard Drive Space You would need and awesome internet connection, maybe two, one for your node the other for netflix And lets say all this is possible and affordable, you will be spending half the day validation/confirming just 1 block. From a mining point of view, there would be many orphan and rejected blocks given it takes a large amount of time to validate/confirmed blocks. It will also advantage the last miner who has found the block as they can start on the next block before anyone else. Say good bye to decentralization of Bitcoin Nodes. Only the Rich and Powerful Corporations will run a full node and destroy the very fabric Bitcoin was built for - Decentralization In other words, we need to scale a different way! Bigger Blocks/Dynamic Blocks are not the answer. You are right on a few things, you can not argue with jbreher, because he doesn't actually know what he wants. First it was "bigger blocks", so i pulled him up on that, and then it is a "no protocol-determined block limit" and now it is a "dynamic block size" that miners can decided what they want. The other thing that you are definitely right about is that the "game is not over yet". But is sure isn't a game between BTC vs BCH/SV. It is BTC against another tech that will change the way we look at this whole peer-to-peer payment system. not just another clone of Bitcoin but a real game changer! that is what i am worried about! Internet speeds are irrelevant, as they increase rapidly as data usage increases. The capacity is not even remotely near its maximum (last I checked 100~1000 GBit for consumers were possible but simply not sensible right now), even if you exclude all the satellites that are being launched over the coming years. Data plans irrelevant as most countries don't have "data plans" for home use and offer unlimited bandwidth instead. Storage is irrelevant as well. Even 4 TB SSDs only cost a few hundred bucks these days. By the time storage became an issue we'll have 50-100 TB hard drives for a couple hundred dollars. RAM seems the only sensible bottleneck if your numbers are accurate. $6 per GB currently and I haven't seen RAM size increase as much as other hardware. But that seems to be mostly because of a lack of utility rather than technical implausibility. I also fail to see how your highway analogy is supposed to hold. Highways are inherently limited by physical space. Hardware inherently works in a different way. If we had arbitrary amounts of space that we could build on economically we'd have no problem with building even a personal lane for every single human in the world. And with hardware we actually do. It takes sometime to develop and scale, but so far there's no end in sight to how much data we can get from any one point on earth to any other. I have no idea about the implications on mining and centralization though. As far as a "real game changer" is concerned. That's already Bitcoin. It solves one of humanity's biggest issues. Banks fucking around and screwing the entire population. For a new "real game changer" to appear we would first require a new "real problem". And Bitcoin hasn't even been around long enough to really get rid of the issues that come with banking, privatized profits, socialized losses, as well as the fiat toilet paper printing press. It'll probably take a few decades until we can really identify new serious problems and have people give enough of a shit about them for some to try and someone to actually succeed in solving them as well as people actually jumping ship. |
|
|
|
Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China
In other news, Bitcoin is dead againLike China would even really ban mining there, ha. Bitmain has too much money to bribe officials. Do they still have that kind of money? Enough, small companies can bribe, I'm sure they can still. Pretty sad if mere 6-7 figure payments can impact legislation. |
|
|
|
Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China
In other news, Bitcoin is dead againLike China would even really ban mining there, ha. Bitmain has too much money to bribe officials. Do they still have that kind of money? |
|
|
|
Let me get this correct, you did advocate for larger blocks, but now you don't. You changed your mind.
You are incorrect. My advocacy has always been for no protocol-determined block limit. What you really want is a "dynamic block size", that Miner's will set themselves, be it Small (80kB) or Large (8GB), doesn't matter.
Absolutely. Now you seem to have caught up. I see where you're at, but I have a problem with the "bankers" (miners) being able to set technical parameters without the users' (user nodes) consent. What I expect miners/bankers to do in such a situation is to build taller entry barriers. Such as enlarging the block size even without immediate financial reward - that is, even if their profit doesn't change or even dips marginally. This would discourage new users from running full nodes. I know your opinion that "fully validating user nodes", or whatever you call the non-mining nodes, add no value to the network. I beg to differ. They can and will ignore malformed blocks. They verify. And "verify don't trust" is probably the strongest of bitcoin's values. When that verification goes away, we - the bitcoiners, including yourself by your own definition - are going to have to fall back to trusting the "bankers". That's why I am unable to understand the philosophy/motivations behind your stance. You are definitely not stupid, either, so I guess that's why many regulars here can't attribute your posts to stupidity and instead bet on malice. TL;DR When larger blocks are really needed by the users, we will get them. The last point you've made was the nail in the coffin regarding my decision to side with Bitcoin. There's too much money involved to allow Bitcoin to die due to technical issues. |
|
|
|
Pretty sure this is the 73rd time that mining has been banned in China
In other news, Bitcoin is dead again |
|
|
|
Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards.
1. Agreed. Popularity does not imply superior technology. 2. Conversely, superior technology does not imply popularity. Superior technology loses all the time, especially when going up against a competitor with entrenched network effects. Inferior protocols win. All. The. Time. 3. If you are trying to build a global competitor to fiat, popularity and network effects are incredibly important. It is unquestionable that Bitcoin has stronger network effects than Bcash, by orders of magnitude. Further Bcash technology (BCH and SV) is inferior, because its security model is weak. Its security model is weak for a number of reasons, all of which come back to a lack of effective decentralization. Without an effective security model, it is not an attractive store of value. If you are not an effective store of value, you cannot gain network effects. If you have inferior network effect and inferior technology, then you have a snowballs chance. In the unlikely event that 8MB blocks became essential for survival, community consensus would rapidly coalesce around 8MB blocks, there would be a hard fork and BCH and SV would remain stranded assets. But the reality is that 8MB are completely unnecessary and would make BTC weaker, not stronger. Accordingly no such consensus exists. I am far more worried about a disruptive innnovation which does away with the need for a blockchain (such as Grin) than I am worried about a Bitcoin carbon copy with a couple of parameter tweaks. Good post. But keep in mind that networks can grow and die rapidly. Especially in volatile phases. Billions of people are going to get into blockchain in the coming years. And dumb moonbois will by default be more attracted to slimy personalities that talk big, while the more rational people will shy away from tribal arguments. If most Bitcoiners started arguing in the manner as some people in this thread do we could very quickly see BCash overtaking, not because of people moving over but because of new people making their decisions.Does Grin not have a blockchain? I thought the only thing that made it unique was it's inflation model. (Edit: Nvm just saw Biodom's post.) |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah larger block blah blah
You have bcash and bsv with larger blocks, go there you have options. What part of we don't want larger blocks is so hard to comprehend Yeah, I get it. But some here seem utterly oblivious to the consequences thereof. And you feel that you grasp full consequences of bcash and bsv and their unlimited blocks ...? For the most part, yes. I certainly feel I have a greater than average grasp of such consequences -- upon both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core -- than does the average Bitcoiner -- in any of the Bitcoin camps. For evidence of such, I need only look at the near-universally asinine replies issued as 'rebuttals' to the points I make. I haven't seen a single decent response to jbreher so far, so there's some merit to this claim. Also, the market cap argument some people brought up doesn't follow. Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards. The market picks the winners. The market doesn't always care about "superior technology". That's fair if the argument is made that way. But using the market's decision as an argument for which is "better" in a technical argument doesn't make sense. I don't think there's anything wrong with just outright stating that you're into Bitcoin because the most prominent representatives of BCash are a bunch of ass wipes that can not be trusted. And that's clearly the reasoning that most people arguing with jbreher are following. After all they're clearly incapable of having a technical debate about the matter. I fall into that camp as well, but I'm not going to pretend that I can hold a candle to jbreher on this topic. Never bothered getting into the technicalities of BTC so can't argue on his level. If they were the only information that I had regarding BTC vs BCash I would be siding with BCash myself. So maybe some people in this thread should take a step back and consider the implications of their petty tribalism with regard to new coiners.The game isn't over yet, and if all that new people have to go by is a bunch of nonsense vs technical arguments we could very well see BCash overtaking. So for whatever reasons, people who care about BTC may want to consider whether or not they want to taint its image with retarded personal attacks and complete absence of rationality. |
|
|
|
Off topic, but...
Word around the campfire has it that Rosewater appears to be suffering from protracted post acute benzodiazepine withdrawal. It's all quite heady and complicated. Lots of ins. Lots of outs. Akathisia, some hallucinations. GABA receptor down-regulation. This on top of tardive dysphoria and that wheat thing, to the best of my knowledge. At any rate, doctors orders. The line between iatrogenic physical dependence and full blown pill sick smack-houndery is a bit unclear. Sometimes you eat the bear, sometimes the bear eats you.
Now where's my hat?
Good question. No welcome back from me until you wear your hat. You may or may not have been missed. |
|
|
|
Blah blah blah larger block blah blah
You have bcash and bsv with larger blocks, go there you have options. What part of we don't want larger blocks is so hard to comprehend Yeah, I get it. But some here seem utterly oblivious to the consequences thereof. And you feel that you grasp full consequences of bcash and bsv and their unlimited blocks ...? For the most part, yes. I certainly feel I have a greater than average grasp of such consequences -- upon both Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Core -- than does the average Bitcoiner -- in any of the Bitcoin camps. For evidence of such, I need only look at the near-universally asinine replies issued as 'rebuttals' to the points I make. I haven't seen a single decent response to jbreher so far, so there's some merit to this claim. Also, the market cap argument some people brought up doesn't follow. Popularity does not imply superiority by technical standards. |
|
|
|
Never gonna fucking happen. Just a matter of time. |
|
|
|
You know, I often wonder why 95% of exchange trades are like 0.05 or 0.001 BTC. The answer is - there are thousands of n00bs (probably can't even calculate percentages and addicted to drugs) who believe that by trading such pathetic amounts, they will become millionaires. I got flash news for you - Not gonna happen! If you are lucky, you may get 10% in a year, so congrats with your 0.0001 BTC profit. Go buy an island with that.  nah it's bots Even if they are bots, the sums of the simultaneous trades is way below 0.1 BTC, which means their owners are really poor. The volume is made by a 5% of trades which are above 1 BTC. Wrong conclusion. I regularly test new strategies with small amounts. And there are other reasons as to why you might want to do a lot of small trades over fewer larger trades. Also, 0.05 BTC is enough to retire within ~5 years if BTC goes to 100-300k and you trade shitcoins with a decent entry and exit strategy. |
|
|
|
... insults is all he's got.
I disagree with him on many (most) points but this...just ain't so. For sure he's a smart guy and makes some good points. "Smart" isn't in short supply. I grew up in a smart city, was surrounded by smart people, went to a smart university, got a smart degree. I'm just not impressed with "smart." Some people can be extremely intelligent by some measures and especially dumb in others. So what is "smart"? In my experience, honesty and integrity are far more scarce and far more valuable attributes. I've watched "smart" people destroy the world around them, and themselves, during the course of my lifetime. I'm just not impressed by "smart." "A hard cap on on-chain txs is a hard cap on on-chain txs, any way you try to spin it." <- then it doesn't matter what size you raise the blocks? how could you advocate larger/bigger blocks when you do not believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. WTF are you babbling about? I advocate larger blocks, as I do believe in it as a solution to deal with transaction congestion. Quite a splendid one, in fact. Lets keep raising it to the point where the blockchain/database/ledger is so massive, no one is going to want to run a full node.
There will always be those who with to run a full node, if only for the ability to trustlessly process incoming payments. The other misconception he is pushing is, "higher fees". As much as we all like to pay nothing for something, the true reality is, we need fees to keep bitcoin secure!
The miners don't need your centrally-planned price controls. You actually remind me of r0ach, when you can not defend your position or answer anything, you just go on a tangent and throw out statements which make no sense.. You still haven't mentioned what size blocks you think Bitcoin needs... reminds me of the little do'er carpet commercial, "tell them the price son!, the price!" "Tell me the blocksize son! the blocksize!" You are the one going off on tangents and ignoring the points that he's making. And no, lowering the block size would almost certainly kill it right now because people would be incapable of using it and hence likely move elsewhere. Disagreeing with larger blocks is one thing, although you have failed to produce any sensible argument against it. But advocating for lowering the block size just indicates that you're just running your mouth. Are you perhaps trying to farm merits so you can join some signature campaign? |
|
|
|
... insults is all he's got.
I disagree with him on many (most) points but this...just ain't so. Seconded. And I disagree with jojo on many points and even got blocked by him. |
|
|
|
Jbear
The market has spoken.
BSV is a classic shitcoin descending towards zero which will never regain its previous heights. Some other shiny new shitcoin will come along and replace it as the "next Bitcoin". It has had its run.
Appeal to authority and generally irrelevant. What the market has decided upon doesn't change the facts. I don't think we disagree. The market has decided (fact) that BSV has 1.7% the value of Bitcoin. The way you worded your post makes it seems as if you were implying that the market not buying a coin makes it technologically inferior. By that reasoning chart music would be the greatest musical accomplishment in all of human history and Amazon would be one of the greatest failures in the world of business. |
|
|
|
Jbear
The market has spoken.
BSV is a classic shitcoin descending towards zero which will never regain its previous heights. Some other shiny new shitcoin will come along and replace it as the "next Bitcoin". It has had its run.
Appeal to authority and generally irrelevant. What the market has decided upon doesn't change the facts. |
|
|
|
Well, Rick is off jet-setting around the globe, somewhere, to attend some fancy event, and I'm left home alone this weekend.
Thinking of consuming 7mg of dried mushrooms and talking to Jah and The Flying Spaghetti Monster tonight.
What could possibly go wrong ?
- Do exercise - Read a good book - Plan a trip- Order dinner at home - Then you go back to WO and you tell us.   |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
